PRINCESS TALENT CENTER PRODUCTION, INC., AND/OR LUCHI SINGH MOLDES v. MASAGCA, G.R. No. 191310 | 2018 - Synopsis Only
829 Phil. 381
G.R. No. 191310. April 11, 2018
PRINCESS TALENT CENTER PRODUCTION, INC., AND/OR LUCHI SINGH MOLDES, PETITIONERS,
VS.
DESIREE T. MASAGCA, RESPONDENT.
Ponente: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,** J.:
Doctrines:
(1) Questions of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve. It is elementary that the scope of this Court's judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact. However, the present case falls under one of the recognized exceptions to the rule, i.e., when the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and/or the Court of Appeals are in conflict with one another. The conflicting findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals pave the way for this Court to review factual issues even if it is exercising its function of judicial review under Rule 45.
(2) It is true that the Court had declared in previous cases that strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure is not required in labor cases. However, the Court also highlights that in such cases, it had allowed the submission of evidence for the first time on appeal with the NLRC in the interest of substantial justice, and had further required for the liberal application of procedural rules that the party should adequately explain the delay in the submission of evidence and should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven.
(3) Moreover, in its review of the evidence on record, the Court bears in mind the settled rule that in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, substantial evidence is considered sufficient. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise. It is also a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his/her affirmative allegations. Since the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts an affirmative allegation, the plaintiff or complainant has to prove his/her affirmative allegation in the complaint and the defendant or the respondent has to prove the affirmative allegations in his/her affirmative defenses and counterclaim.
(4) The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The performance bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarity liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and damages.
The aforequoted provision is plain and clear, the joint and several liability of the principal/employer, recruitment/placement agency, and the corporate officers of the latter, for the money claims and damages of an overseas Filipino worker is absolute and without qualification. It is intended to give utmost protection to the overseas Filipino worker, who may not have the resources to pursue her money claims and damages against the foreign principal/employer in another country. The overseas Filipino worker is given the right to seek recourse against the only link in the country to the foreign principal/employer, i.e., the recruitment/placement agency and its corporate officers.
Synopsis:
In the case of Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. and Luchi Singh Moldes vs. Desiree T. Masagca, the respondent auditioned for a singing contest in November 2002 at ABC-Channel 5 in Novaliches, Quezon City. At the office of the petitioner, Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. (PTCPI), the president, Luchi Singh Moldes, persuaded her to apply for a job as a singer/entertainer in South Korea. The Philippine agent of SAENCO, the Korean principal/promoter, PTCPI, executed a Model Employment Contract for Filipino Overseas Performing Artists (OPAS) to Korea with the respondent on February 3, 2003.
Respondent worked as a singer in South Korea for nine months and then was repatriated to the Philippines. Respondent filed a complaint against petitioners and SAENCO with the NLRC, alleging that she was made to sign two Employment Contracts, but she was not given the chance to read any of them despite her requests. She also claimed that she was made to sign several spurious loan documents by Moldes. Respondent worked at Seaman's Seven Pub in Ulsan, South Korea without receiving any salary from SAENCO. Respondent subsisted on the 20% commission that she received for every lady's drink the customers purchased for her.
The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint, but the NLRC later ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that she was dismissed from employment without just cause and without procedural due process. The Court of Appeals held that petitioners and SAENCO were solidarily liable to pay respondent her unpaid salaries for one year and attorney's fees.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals, ruling that the respondent was illegally dismissed from her employment, and petitioners are liable for her money claims. The plain language of respondent's Employment Contract with SAENCO showed that her employment would be enforced for the period of six months, commencing on the date she departed from the Philippines, and extendible by another six months by mutual agreement of the parties. Although respondent's employment with SAENCO was good for six months only, the Court was convinced that it was extended under the same terms and conditions for another six months. Petitioners failed to establish that they had a valid cause to terminate the respondent's employment, and they failed to comply with procedural due process.
As a result, the liability of SAENCO, as principal/employer, and petitioner PTCPI, as recruitment/placement agency, for the monetary awards in favor of respondent, an illegally dismissed employee, is joint and several. In turn, since petitioner PTCPI is a juridical entity, petitioner Moldes, as its corporate officer, is herself jointly and solidarity liable with petitioner PTCPI for respondent's monetary awards, regardless of whether she acted with malice or bad faith in dealing with respondent. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals that petitioners and SAENCO were solidarily liable to pay respondent her unpaid salaries for one year and attorney's fees. This case emphasizes the importance of complying with the terms and conditions of employment contracts, as well as providing employees with their rightful salaries and benefits.
Nature of petition:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by petitioners Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. (PTCPI) and Luchi Singh Moldes (Moldes) assailing: (1) the Decision[1] dated November 27, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 110277, which annulled and set aside the Resolutions dated November 11, 2008[2] and January 30, 2009[3] of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CA No. 049990-06, and ordered petitioners and their foreign principal, Saem Entertainment Company, Ltd. (SAENCO), to jointly and severally pay respondent Desiree T. Masagca her unpaid salaries for one year, plus attorney's fees; and (2) the Resolution[4] dated February 16, 2010 of the appellate court in the same case, which denied the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioners and SAENCO.
Dispositive portion:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated November 27, 2009 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. For the illegal dismissal of respondent Desiree T. Masagca, petitioners Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. and Luchi Singh Moldes, together with Saem Entertainment Company, Ltd., are ORDERED to jointly and severally pay respondent the following: (a) US$1,800.00, representing respondent's salaries for the unexpired portion of her extended Employment Contract, subject to legal interest of 12% per annum from June 2004 to June 30, 2013 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 to the date that this Decision becomes final and executory; (b) reimbursement of respondent's placement fees with 12% interest per annum from June 2004 to the date that this Decision becomes final and executory; and (c) attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award. The order for payment of respondent's salaries from September 2003 to May 2004 is DELETED. All the monetary awards herein to respondent shall earn legal interest of 6% per annum from the date that this Decision becomes final and executory until full satisfaction thereof.